ÿWPCÛ  ‹ÎÛ+†ø›‹àë7“?ëK›[$ b÷õ`æ:HÔ§7•œÑücbPsÆIú¢’Fðp3„ ’ç‘…ÆAÉƉä dz=n¸*ˆ›¼Ú Ò(KO3œá^.éÛç8ƒuÑpäè¶*éî2‹®Ÿ¶VĉÉî³£¡Q¬Ónëy…«T,托?ŸÏ¾ tƒÔ-©¥Ê „=y¬1ýpØ·/oÃôUvÇæBøÃòxÔ/J>î£ÇH-°Ð¨uÊ%þõf†•Œ‹tPùèTP ÌÔ¶` :Ïéô×–˜g<Qçåœ×çIÔ“2}û¾EfðY-®§8à+‰©••èÅ· D{¤ØÛ7Oùu.4wäV©\|<4ÀXXN1…S~ÒÕ½õÜÏÒc&€ xBeM‡¹÷¯Ò]'¦Q[NÁ`pûŒýè!¤òí¥ ”‘{Œ3¹«^Æ–1jqh Þsd« û‹oíÿ9ËTñ¶n…,ôWÉ›Y3FøŸo ãÒd:eó!6?{ÃVèƱZbCSçb¾"¹a¹¤ÿÿ²ÂÖöìí*›Â4=>çx‘Ãzzf€š°HÃ>Y€„>D€R¶£öµ« vPévè…³°ïwáþŒ_¾#!PUNq %¿ 0GÅU F w@R4’¦µ m·ÆÎ 0e”ÐùNÉ^ Ë 1‡× 1m^ 0cËb . 0c: : : U> ˜HP LaserJet 5MP,ð,,,,,ð0(ÈhH  Z6Times New Roman RegularX(M×$¡¡Ô€XJXXXÔ<4šÛ 9Z+‹.Courier New Regular õö÷øUùEúûUüýEþlzÁ(˜v3|xþ ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀI., II.,Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 54#)–2Quick I.Úƒ ÚÚ  Ú.à0 àÛ€ Û CadiganBrennenTimberwoodOwingsmaterialmenMorrell f]or w]eReistertown T]heÐKW)ä(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList1I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.# e37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;³´$´´Ô2 eÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à- ù -(;3¸Ì$§§Ý ƒM×!ÝÔ€XR XXXÔÝ  Ý´¤ìl9Z+&Courier RegularÝ ƒM×!ÝÔ€XR XXXÔÝ  Ý›ò òó óÓÓÒ(` °°(#°(#(ÒÐ ° Ðà@ll:Làò òREPORTEDó óˆÐ ° Ðà@/LàòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€SPECIAL€APPEALSˆÐ xÈ Ðà@¸¸9LàOF€MARYLANDóóˆÐ $t Ðà@ll:LàNo.€2763ˆÌà@œœ4LàSeptember€Term,€1999ˆÌà  àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ ( x  ÐÌÌÓÓà@-LàRIDGE€HEATING,€AIR€CONDITIONING€ANDˆÌà@7LàPLUMBING,€INC.ˆÌÌÌÌà@ÔÔ=Làv.ˆÌÌÌà@pp2LàROBERT€S.€BRENNEN,€ET€UX.ˆÌÓÓà  àÌà@  ,Làòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóˆÐ ^® ÐÓÓà  àà p àDavis,Ìà  àà p àThieme,Ìà  àà p àKenney,ÌÌà@˜˜=LàJJ.ˆÌÌà  àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ "^# ÐÌÌà@œœ4Làò òOpinion€by€Davis,€J.ˆÐ $à& Ðà@ÌÌ.LàDissenting€Opinion€by€Kenney,€J.ó óˆÐ t%Ä ' ÐÌà  àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ .'~") ÐÌà  àà p àFiled:ñõñ€November€13,€2000ñõñÐ Ú(*$+ ÐÒ(` °°°(ÒÑ  ÑÐ  °)%+ ÐÑ  ÑØØÑ  ÑÓÓÑ€ÑÜÜÑ8€R XXdÖdÈ8ÑñôñÓ  Óñôñà  àOn€September€30,€1998,€appellant€Ridge€Heating,€AirÐ ° ÐConditioning€and€Plumbing,€Inc.€filed€a€two„count€Complaint€toÏEstablish€and€Enforce€a€Mechanicsðð€Lien€against€appellees€Robert€S.ÏBrennen€and€Elizabeth€P.€Brennen€in€the€Circuit€Court€for€BaltimoreÏCounty.€€On€October€5,€1998,€the€circuit€court€(Cadigan,€J.)€issuedÏan€Order€to€Show€Cause€to€appellees€inquiring€why€the€lien€in€theÏamount€claimed€should€not€attach€to€appelleesðð€property.€€AppelleesÏfiled€a€Verified€Answer€on€October€22,€1998,€denying€liability€onÏthe€grounds€that€they€were€not€indebted€to€their€generalÏcontractor,€Timberwood€Construction€(Timberwood).Ìà  àAt€the€show€cause€hearing€on€November€12,€1998,€the€partiesÏagreed,€by€Consent€Order,€that€the€matter€should€be€set€for€trialÏin€the€normal€course,€pursuant€to€Maryland€Rule€304(e)(2)(E),€andÏthat€no€final€lien€would€be€entered€at€that€stage€of€theÏproceedings.€€Following€discovery,€appellees€filed€a€Motion€forÏSummary€Judgment€on€May€9,€1999.€€Appellant€filed€its€Answer€andÏMemorandum€in€Opposition€to€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment.Ìà  àOn€December€29,€1999,€the€circuit€court€issued€its€Opinion€andÏOrder€granting€appelleesðð€motion€for€summary€judgment€and€entered€Ïjudgment€in€favor€of€appellees€and€against€appellant.€€AppellantÏfiled€this€timely€appeal,€presenting€one€question,€which€weÏrephrase€as€follows:ÓÓÌÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àDid€the€trial€court€err€in€applying€RealÏProperty€ðð€9„104(f)(3)€of€the€MarylandÏAnnotated€Code,€limiting€an€ownerððs€liabilityÏto€a€subcontractor€who€performs€work€on€theÏâ âownerððs€single€family€dwelling?Ð#Ð, (0` x` x #ÐÔ  Ôâ âÌÓÓà  àFor€the€reasons€set€forth€below€we€answer€appellantððs€questionÏin€the€negative€and€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€ÌÌà@!ìàò òÔ‡¼¥»XXR ÔFACTUAL€BACKGROUNDÔ#†XR X»¼¥#Ôó óˆÐ ( Ú Ðà  àIn€December€1997,€appellant€contracted€with€Timberwood€toÏfurnish€and€install€heating€and€air€conditioning€systems€and€toÏfurnish€and€perform€requisite€plumbing€work,€as€part€of€the€overallÏconstruction€of€an€addition€to€appelleesðð€residential€home€inÏOwings€Mills,€Maryland.€€The€contract€between€Timberwood€andÏappellees€provided€that€Timberwood€would€complete€the€job€by€AprilÏ25,€1998€and€that€appellees€would€pay€progress€payments,€as€setÏforth€in€the€contract,€totaling€$153,085.€€Ìà  àTimberwood€abandoned€the€project€on€August€3,€1998€because€ofÏfinancial€difficulties,€breaching€its€contract€with€appellees.€ÏAppellees€incurred€additional€costs€of€$9,000€for€a€substituteÏcontractor€to€complete€the€unfinished€improvements€to€their€home.ÏAlthough€appellant€brought€a€lawsuit€against€Timberwood€to€collectÏon€its€outstanding€invoices,€appellant€additionally€sought€toÏimpose€a€mechanicsðð€lien€on€appelleesðð€home€for€the€amount€owed€itÏunder€the€Timberwood€contract.€€Prior€to€contracting€withÏTimberwood,€appellant€had€at€least€eight€other€contracts€withÏTimberwood€and€was€aware€of€Timberwoodððs€payment€history.€ÏAppellantððs€records€indicate€that€Timberwood€had€accounts€payableÏto€appellant€of€over€ninety€days€past€due.Ð .¶'/ Ðà  àThe€trial€court€found€that€Md.€Code€(1999€Repl.€Vol.,€1996ÏSupp.),€Real€Prop.€(R.P.)€ðð€9„104(f)(3)€applies€in€this€case,Ïlimiting€the€liability€of€appellees€to€the€subcontractor.€ÏAdditionally,€the€trial€court€found€that€there€was€no€dispute€as€toÏany€material€fact€and€appellant€failed€to€prove€that€appellees€wereÏindebted€to€Timberwood.€€Therefore,€appellees€were€entitled€to€aÏgrant€of€summary€judgment.ÌÌÔ& p Ôà@#ìàò òÔ‡¼¥»XXR ÔLEGAL€ANALYSISó óÔ#†XR X»¼¥?%#ԈР®`  Ðà  àAppellant€contends€that€R.P.€ðð€9„104(f)(3)€should€not€apply€inÏthis€case€because€the€subsection€applies€only€to€new€constructionÔ'p®%ÔÏof€single€family€dwellings,€not€to€improvements,€additions,€orÏrenovations€of€existing€homes.€€Appellees€contend€that€theÏlegislature€did€not€intend€a€narrow€construction€of€R.P.€ðð€9„¼104(f)(3)€when€it€enacted€the€ð ðresidential€exceptionðð€to€mechanicsððÏœliens;›€rather,€the€statute€applies€to€all€homeowners€and€not€solelyÏhomes€being€newly€constructed.€€Ìà  àReal€Property€ðð€9„104(f)(3)€refers€to€the€notice€requirementsÏthat€a€subcontractor€must€provide€when€initiating€a€mechanicsðð€lienÏon€an€ownerððs€property:ÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(f)€€òòò òPayments€by€owner€to€contractor€afterÐ *(Ü!( Ðnotice;€limitation€on€lien€against€certainÏsingle€family€dwellings.€ð"ð€Ð ` x` x Ðà@„„'ìà.€.€.€ˆÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àó óóóà8¸ ` x` xà(3)€Notwithstanding€any€otherÐ Â+t%, Ðprovision€of€this€section€to€theÏcontrary,€the€lien€of€theÐ n- '. Ðsubcontractor€against€a€singleÏfamily€dwelling€being€erected€on€theÏland€of€the€owner€for€his€ownÏresidence€shall€not€exceed€theÏamount€by€which€the€owner€isÏindebted€under€the€contract€at€theÏtime€the€notice€is€given.Ói(ÓÐ ¸ ¸  Ðà  àAppellant€relies€on€R.P.€ðð€9„102(a)€for€support€of€itsÏcontention€that€not€all€construction€may€be€subject€to€a€mechanicsððÏlien:ÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àEvery€building€erected€and€every€buildingÏrepaired,€rebuilt€or€improved€to€the€extent€ofÏ15€percent€of€its€value€is€subject€toÏestablishment€of€a€lien€in€accordance€withÏthis€subtitle€for€the€payment€of€all€debts,Ïwithout€regard€to€the€amount,€contracted€forÏwork€done€for€or€about€the€building€and€forÏmaterials€furnished€for€or€about€the€building,Ïincluding€.€.€.€.Ð ` x` x ÐÌÓÓBecause€the€legislature€specifically€included€the€distinction€inÏR.P.€ðð9„102(a)€between€ð ðevery€building€erectedðð€and€ð ðeveryÏbuilding€repaired,€rebuilt€or€improved,ðð€appellant€argues€that€theÏlegislature€would€have€included€the€same€distinction€in€R.P.€ðð9„¼104(f)(3)€if€it€had€intended€that€improvements€to€existing€homesÏwere€to€be€included€in€the€residential€exception.€€Instead,€theÏlanguage€of€R.P.€ðð€9„104(f)(3)€reads,€ð ða€single€family€dwellingÏbeing€òòerectedóó€on€the€land€of€the€owner€for€his€[or€her]€ownÐ &Ä& Ðresidence.ðð€€(Emphasis€added.)€€The€section€does€not€containÏlanguage€regarding€existing€buildings€to€be€ð ðrepaired,€rebuilt€orÏimproved.ððÌÐ Î,€&. Ðà  àAlthough€the€mechanicsðð€lien€statute€was€enacted€in€1976€toÏprotect€subcontractors€and€materialmen€upon€proof€of€performanceÏand€nonpayment,€òòsee€generally,óó€òòJohnson€v.€Metcalfeóó,€209€Md.€537,Ð ¦ X Ð543€(holding€that€a€contractor€may€recover€amounts€due€based€onÏwork€performed);€òòRidge€Sheet€Metal€Co.€v.€Morrellóó,€69€Md.€App.€364,Ð  ¼ Ð369€(1986),€the€law€was€amended€in€1982€to€ð ðprotect€the€owner€of€aÏsingle€family€dwellingðð€from€liability.€€òòGrubb€v.€Abbottóó,€84€Md.Ð n  ÐApp.€384,€392€(1990).€€As€we€noted€in€òòRidge,€óóthe€statute€wasÐ &Ø  ÐenactedÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[f]or€the€purpose€of€limiting€the€liability€ofÏan€owner€to€a€subcontractor€for€work€performedÏand€materials€rendered€by€the€subcontractor€onÏa€single€family€dwelling€erected€on€theÏownerððs€land€for€his€[or€her]€own€residence,Ïto€the€extent€that€the€owner€has€renderedÏpayment€to€the€[prime]€contractor.€.€.€.Ð ` x` x ÐÌòòÓÓRidgeóó,€69€Md.€App.€at€370€(citing€1982€Md.€Laws€251,€effective€JulyÐ :ì Ð1,€1982)).€€Ìà  àSubsequently,€in€òòGrubb,óó€we€declined€to€accept€a€narrowÐ žP Ðdefinition€of€ð ðsingle€family€dwelling.ðð€€òòSee€generally€Grubbóó,€84Ð V!  ÐMd.€App.€at€393.€€At€issue€was€whether€a€mechanicsðð€lien€couldÏattach€to€a€home€when€the€owners€were€constructing€a€separateÏaddition€for€use€as€an€in„law€apartment.€€òòId.óó€at€386.€€In€thatÐ f& & Ðcase,€the€owners€made€clear€that€the€purpose€of€the€constructionÏwas€to€ð ðimprove€the€property€and€make€room€for€[the€ownerððs]€motherÏâ âat€the€residence.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€390.€€The€prime€contractor€of€the€Ô_ÔjobÐ v+(%, Ðcontracted€with€Grubb€Contractors€to€construct€the€addition€ontoÏthe€family€home.€òò€Id.óó€€at€387.€€Ð ú¬ Ðâ âà  àWhen€the€prime€contractor€failed€to€pay€the€subcontractor,ÏGrubb€sent€the€owners€a€notice€of€its€intention€to€claim€aÏmechanicsðð€lien,€pursuant€to€Ô_ÔR.P.Ô_Ô€ðð€9„104.€€òòId.óó€€Grubbððs€lien,Ð  ¼ Ðhowever,€was€denied€by€the€trial€court€and€Grubb€appealed,Ïasserting€that€the€residential€exemption€did€not€apply€to€ownersÏwho€were€not€constructing€a€ð ðsingle€family€dwelling.ðð€€GrubbððsÏcontention€was€that€the€legislatureððs€designation€of€ð ðsingle€familyÏdwellingðð€within€the€statute€did€not€contemplate€the€inclusion€ofÏan€addition€or€ð ðindependent€dwellingðð€added€onto€an€ownerððsÏproperty.€€òòId.óó€at€390.€€Grubb€argued€that,€because€the€addition€wasÐ Ê| Ða€separate€dwelling€intended€for€someone€other€than€an€immediateÏfamily€member,€it€could€not€qualify€for€the€residential€exceptionÏpromulgated€in€Ô_ÔR.P.Ô_Ô€ðð€9„104(f)(3).€€We€disagreed,€stating€thatÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àin€seeking€to€protect€the€owner€of€a€singleÏfamily€dwelling€the€[Ô_Ôl]egislatureÔ_Ô€sought€toÏprotect€the€family€by€òòlimiting€the€exposure€ofÐ 2!ä  Ðtheir€residence€to€the€potential€liability€ofÏa€mechanicððs€[sic]€lien€as€opposed€toÏprotecting€the€commercial€enterprise€ofÏmultiple€family€dwellings.ÓÞ;ÓÐ ` x` x ÐGrubb,óó€84€Md.€at€392.€Ô_Ô(emphasisÔ_Ô€added)Ð Z& & Ðà  àThus,€we€concluded€in€òòGrubbóó€that€the€legislative€intent€behindÐ (Ä!( Ðthe€exception€was€to€draw€a€distinction€between€commercial€andÏresidential€structures.ÓÓòò€óóÐ v+(%, ÐÌÓ­>ÓÐ (-Ú&. Ðà  àPrior€to€òòGrubbóó,€we€had€held€that€a€subcontractor€who€had€notÐ N Ðbeen€paid€by€the€general€contractor€could€not€establish€aÏmechanicsðð€lien€against€the€owner€of€a€single€family€dwellingÏbecause€the€owner€owed€no€payments€to€the€prime€contractor€at€theÏtime€the€contractor€pulled€out€of€the€job€for€financial€reasons.€Ð  ¼ ÐòòRidge€Sheet€Metal€Co.óó,€69€Md.€App.€at€373.€€The€policy€behind€Ô_ÔR.P.Ô_ÔÐ ¶h  Ððð9„104(3)(f)€was€to€shift€the€risk€of€loss€from€the€owner€of€aÏsingle€family€dwelling€to€the€subcontractor.€€òòId.óó€at€374.€€InÐ Ì  ÐòòRidgeóó,òò€óóconcerning€the€legislative€intent€undergirding€the€statute,Ð Ò„  Ðwe€explained:€ÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àTurning€to€the€legislative€intent,€we€gleanÏfrom€the€preamble€to€chapter€251€quotedÏpreviously€that€òòthe€Legislature€intended€inÐ â” Ðlimited€situations€to€shift€the€risk€of€lossÏfrom€the€owner€of€a€single€family€dwelling€toÏthe€subcontractor.óó€€The€enactment€of€ðð9-114Ð v( Ðunder€chapter€251€in€1982€further€evidencesÏthe€Legislature's€intent€to€ameliorate€ownerÏliability.€€This€new€section€indicates€thatÏthe€burden€for€negligent€paying€will€no€Ïlonger€be€borne€by€the€owner.€€Section€9-114Ïstates:€Ð ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà8¸ ` x` xà(a)€At€the€time€of€settlement€orÏpayment€in€full€between€a€contractorÏand€an€owner,€the€contractor€shallÏgive€to€the€owner€a€signed€releaseÏof€lien€from€each€material€supplierÏand€subcontractor€who€provided€workÏor€materials€under€the€contract.€Ð ¸ ¸  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà8¸ ` x` xà(b)€An€owner€is€not€subject€to€aÏlien€and€is€not€otherwise€liable€forÏany€work€or€materials€included€inÏthe€release€under€subsection€(a)€ofÏthis€section.Ð ¸ ¸  Ðâ âÐ  -¼&. ÐÔ_Ôà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThis€provision€shifts€responsibility€forÏâ âinsuring€that€subcontractors€are€paid€awayÏfrom€the€owner€to€the€prime€contractor.Ð ` x` x ÐÌÓBÓòòIdóó.€(emphasis€added).Ð ¦ X Ðà  àAddressing€the€subcontractorððs€argument€as€to€fairness,€weÏreasoned€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAppellant€asserts€that€unless€we€determineÏthat€appellees€are€"indebted"€and€a€lien€canÏbe€established,€the€subcontractor€isÏunprotected€from€the€impecunious€primeÏcontractor€who€breaches€and€then€otherwiseÏuses€the€payment€rather€than€paying€theÏportion€due€over€to€the€subcontractor.€€WereÏwe€to€accept€appellant's€interpretation€thatÏan€unenforceable€obligation€amounted€toÏ"indebtedness"€under€the€contract,€ownersÏwould€still€be€liable€to€subcontractorsÏdespite€the€fact€that€they€have€paid€over€allÏmonies€they€were€obligated€to€pay€under€theÏcontract,€and€despite€the€fact€that€the€primeÏcontractor€could€not€go€back€against€them€for€Ïthe€retainage.€€This€interpretation€does€notÏlimit€the€owner's€liability€but€insteadÏextends€it.€Ð ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àMoreover,€the€subcontractor€can€best€bear€theÏrisk€of€loss€in€this€type€of€situation.€OneÏwho€is€in€the€trade€is€clearly€in€a€betterÏposition€than€an€owner€to€know€whether€theÏcontractor€is€in€a€financially€unstable€Ïposition.€€Late€payments€to€other€materialmenÏand€rumors€in€the€trade€are€better€known€toÏthe€subcontractor€or€are€more€easilyÏdiscoverable€by€the€subcontractor€than€theÏhomeowner.€Increasing€the€risk€of€doubleÏpayment€for€the€single€family€dwelling€ownerÏmay€well€dampen€the€enthusiasm€of€theÏprospective€house€builder.€€.€.€.Ð ` x` x ÐÌÓ#HÓòòId.€óóat€374„75.Ð L*þ#+ Ðà  àIn€considering€who€is€in€the€best€position€to€avoid€financialÏloss,€we€said:€Ð °-b'/ ÐÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAdditionally,€the€subcontractor€can€protectÏitself€against€loss€very€easily€under€theÏcontract.€€The€standard€A.I.A.€contract€usedÏin€the€case€òòsub€judiceóó€provided€that€theРЂ Ð"[o]wner€shall€have€the€right€to€issue€jointÏpayee€checks€to€Contractor€and€such€otherÏsubcontractors€or€materialmen€as€Owner€mayÏdeem€necessary€in€Owner's€sole€discretion.ððÏAppellant,€if€it€anticipated€trouble€orÏsuspected€the€contractor€of€financialÏinstability€or€as€a€preventive€measure,€couldÏhave€requested€the€owner€to€issue€progressÏchecks€payable€to€both€the€prime€contractorÏand€to€it€for€the€work€it€did.€€Single€familyÏdwelling€owners€have€little€reason€to€objectÏwhen€a€subcontractor€requests€that€it€be€namedÏas€a€joint€payee€for€work€done€since€such€aÏrequest€forestalls€the€possibility€of€aÏmechanic's€[sic]€lien€levied€against€theirÏproperty.€òòThus,€despite€appellant'sÐ 6è Ðprotestations,€it€is€not€necessarilyÏunprotected€from€the€impecunious€contractor.ÏMoreover,€the€unpaid€subcontractor€may€always€Ïfile€suit€against€the€prime€contractor€toÏrecover€monies€due€for€work€performed.€ÏSection€9-111,€in€force€prior€to€1982€andÏstill€in€effect,€contemplates€such€a€situationÏby€providing€thatóó€ÐÈ` x` x Ѐ€Ìà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà8¸ ` x` xà(n)othing€in€this€subtitle€affectsÏthe€right€of€any€person,€to€whom€anyÏdebt€is€due€for€work€done€orÏmaterial€furnished,€to€maintain€anyÏpersonal€action€against€the€owner€ofÏthe€building€or€any€other€personÏliable€for€the€debt.ÓUNÓ€ÓӀР¸ ¸  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àFinally,€contrary€to€appellant'sÏcharacterization,€appellees€were€not€unjustlyÏenriched€based€on€the€facts€presented.€€It€isÏappropriate€to€infer€that€appellees€paid€toÏthe€contractor€in€the€last€progress€paymentÏthe€amount€allocable€to€appellant€for€the€workÏit€performed€less€20€percent.€€Appellees€wouldÏbe€required€to€pay€twice€for€the€work€doneÏshould€they€have€to€pay€appellant€now€orÏshould€a€lien€in€the€full€amount€be€Ïestablished.€€€€Ô_ÔÐÔ-†'/` x` x Ѐ€€€€€Ìà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à.€.€.ÌÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIn€conclusion,€we€hold€the€owners€were€notÏindebted€under€the€contract€when€the€notice€ofÏintent€to€claim€a€lien€was€given,€nor€wereÏthey€unjustly€enriched.€Hence,€theÏsubcontractor's€lien€must€fail.Ó¦TÓÐ ` x` x ÐòòIdóó.€at€375„77€(emphasis€added).Ð Ô †  Ðà  àSimilarly,€the€Court€of€Appeals€held,€in€òòÔ_ÔReisterstownÔ_Ô€LumberÐ Œ>  ÐCo.€v.€Tsaoóó,€319€Md.€623,€627€(1990),€that,€although€the€mechanicsððÐ Dö  Ðlien€statute€ð ðshould€be€liberally€construed€in€favor€of€lienÏclaimants,ðð€Ô_ÔR.P.Ô_Ô€ðð€9„104(f)(3)€was€created€as€an€exception€to€theÏstatute.€€The€òòÔ_ÔReisterstownÔ_Ôóó€Court€held€that€the€clear€purpose€ofÐ T ÐÔ_ÔR.P.Ô_Ô€ðð€9„104(f)(3)€was€to€protect€the€owner€of€a€single€familyÏdwelling€from€double€payment€to€the€contractor€and€subcontractor.€ÏòòId.óó€at€628.Ð d Ðà  àSpeaking€directly€to€the€purpose€of€the€exception€in€Ô_ÔR.P.Ô_Ô€ðð€9„¼104,€the€Court€of€Appeals,€in€òòÔ_ÔReisterstownÔ_Ô,óó€explained:Ð Èz ÐÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àBut€we€are€here€concerned€particularly€withÏthe€residential€exception€which€was€added€toÏthe€current€€statute€by€Ch.€251€of€the€Acts€ofÏ1982.€€òòThat€exception's€clear€purpose€is€toÐ #´" Ðprotect€from€double€payment€the€owneróó€of€aÐ Þ## Ð"single€family€dwelling€being€erected€on€theÏowner's€land€for€his€own€residence."€...Ð ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThat€balance,€per€(f)(3),€establishes€theÏlimit€of€the€potential€lien€which€can€beÏimposed€upon€the€property€of€the€owner€of€aÏ"residence."€€òòThe€€subcontractor's€lien€cannotÐ ¾)p#* Ðexceed€the€amount€due€by€the€owner€to€theÏcontractor.€€In€that€way€the€owner€can€beÏprotected€from€double€payment.€€óóOn€receipt€ofÐ R,&- Ðthe€notice€of€intent€to€claim€a€lien€the€ownerÏis€entitled€to€withhold€from€future€drawÐ .¶'/ Ðpayments€to€the€contractor€"the€amount€theÏowner€ascertains€to€be€due€the€subcontractorÏgiving€the€notice."€€ðð9-104(f)(1).€If€theÏsubcontractor€establishes€a€lien,€the€ownerÏmay€take€credit€for€the€lien€in€resolving€theÏaccount€with€the€contractor.€€ðð€9-104(f)(2).€€ÏÐ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€issue€here€is€not€how€much€the€lien€on€theÏresidence€may€be.€€Thus,€the€time€of€theÏnotice€as€specified€in€ðð€9-104(f)€is€notÏcontrolling.€...€Ð ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€special€rule€applies€only€where€theÏconstruction€is€"a€single€family€òòdwellingÐ ´  Ðbeing€erected€on€the€owner's€land€for€his€ownÏresidence€could€produce€double€payment€on€theÏpart€of€the€Ô_ÔTsaosÔ_Ô.€óó€Ð–H` x` x ÐÌòòId.€óóat€628„31€(emphasis€added).Ó*\ÓÐ Hú Ðà  àAlthough€appellant€asserts€in€its€brief€that,€ð ðat€no€time€hasÏa€Maryland€appellate€court€been€asked€to€determine€whether€Ô_ÔR.P.Ô_ÔÏðð9„104(f)(3)€applies€to€home€improvements,ðð€prior€holdings€of€thisÏCourt€and€the€Court€of€Appeals€have€consistently€construed€theÏresidential€exception€of€Ô_ÔR.P.Ô_Ô€ðð€9„104(f)(3)€in€the€homeownerððsÏfavor.€€òòSeegenerally€Ô_Ô¢Reisterstown£Ô_Ôóó,€319€Md.€at€628;€òòGrubbóó,€84€Md.Ð \  ÐApp.€at€392;€òòRidgeóó,€69€Md.€App.€at€375.€€Appellant€would€have€thisÐ "Æ! ÐCourt€interpret€the€statute€as€distinguishing€between€theÏconstruction€of€new€homes€and€improvements€made€to€existing€homes.€ÏAccording€to€appellant,€the€statuteððs€reference€only€to€ð ðsingleÏfamily€dwelling€being€erectedðð€should€be€interpreted€as€excludingÏrepairs€or€improvements€to€existing€homes.€€We€are€not€persuaded€byÏappellantððs€narrow€interpretation€of€the€statute€or€that€theÏÔ_Ôlegislature€intended€a€distinction€between€new€construction€ofÐ Ô-†'/ Ðsingle€family€dwellings€and€improvements€to€single€familyÏdwellings.€€Ìà  àContrary€to€appellantððs€argument,€the€absence€of€any€languageÏin€the€statute€regarding€repairs€or€improvements€does€notÏcountermand€the€policy€concerns€in€protecting€the€homeowner.€€OurÏprior€decisions€have€reiterated€that€the€distinction€theÏlegislature€made€in€enacting€the€residential€exception€was€aÏdistinction€between€commercial€buildings€and€single€familyÏdwellings,€rather€than€between€newly€built€homes€and€existingÏhomes.€€òòSee€Grubbóó,€84€Md.€App.€at€392€(ð ð.€.€.€the€[l]egislatureÐ Z  Ðsought€to€protect€the€family€.€.€.€as€opposed€to€protecting€theÏcommercial€enterprise€of€multiple€family€dwellings.ðð).€€òòGrubbóó€isÐ ¾p Ðinstructive€in€our€decision,€because€there€the€owner€was€likewiseÏbuilding€an€improvement€or€addition€to€his€existing€family€home.€ÏOur€holding€in€òòGrubbóó,€however,€addressed€whether€the€term€ð ðsingleР΀ Ðfamily€dwellingðð€would€include€the€addition€of€an€in„law€apartmentÏand€if€so,€whether€construction€of€a€separate€dwelling€on€theÏproperty€was€covered€by€the€residential€exception€of€R.P.€ðð€9„¼104(f)(3).€€òòSee€id.óó€at€390.€€We€determined€that€the€ð ð[ownersðð]Ð Š$<$ Ðhome,€as€improved,€meets€[the]€definition€of€a€ððsingle€familyÏdwellingðð€for€the€purposes€of€the€Mechanicððs€[sic]€Lien€Law.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ î' !( Ðat€396.€There€simply€is€no€plausible€rationale€to€support€aÏdistinction€between€òòGrubbóó,€which€involved€the€improvement€of€aÐ R+%, Ðresidence€by€the€addition€of€an€in„law€apartment,€and€the€instantÐ  -¼&. Ðcase,€which€also€involves€an€addition€to€the€personal€residence€ofÏappellees.€Ìà  àThe€minorityððs€reliance€on€òòRidge€Sheet€Metal€Co.€toóó€supportÐ ¦ X Ðits€argument€that€the€original€purpose€of€the€mechanicsðð€lien€lawÏwas€to€protect€subcontractors€and€materialmen€is€overridden€by€theÏpolicy€considerations€underlying€R.P.€ðð€9„104(f)(3)€embraced€inÏòòGrubb,€óówhich€specifically€dealt€with€the€status€of€the€statute€asÐ b  Ðan€exception€to€the€mechanicsðð€lien€statute.€€òòSee€ReisterstownÐ Ì  ÐLumber,óó€319€Md.€at€627.€€In€òòGrubb,óó€we€held€that€expanding€a€houseÐ Ò„  Ðby€affixing€an€in„law€apartment€to€it€would€fall€under€theÏexception€to€the€mechanicsðð€lien€law;€there€is€no€reason€toÏdistinguish€the€construction€of€an€addition€that€results€inÏsomething€other€than€an€in„law€apartment.€€As€appellate€decisionsÏon€this€issue€have€evolved,€the€policies€behind€the€statute€haveÏlikewise€emerged€more€definitively:€€(1)€the€protection€of€an€ownerÏof€a€single€family€dwelling€from€double€payment€to€the€primary€andÏsubcontractor;€and€(2)€as€this€Court€stated€in€òòGrubbóó,€limiting€theÐ >!ð  Ðexposure€of€an€ownerððs€residence€to€the€potential€liability€of€Ô_ÔaÏmechanicsðð€lien€òòas€opposed€to€protecting€the€commercial€enterpriseÐ ¢$T$ Ðof€multiple€family€dwellingsóó.€€The€argument€advanced€by€theÐ Z& & Ðminority€narrowly€interprets€the€phrase€ð ðsingle€family€dwellingÏbeing€erected.ðð€€Ìà  àSince€we€recently€have€interpreted€ð ðsingle€family€dwellingðð€inÏòòGrubbóó€to€include€construction€of€an€in„law€apartment€and€the€CourtÐ -È&. Ðof€Appeals,€in€òòÔ_ÔReisterstownÔ_Ôóó,€has€determined€that€one€who€laterÐ N Ðdecides€not€to€move€into€a€home€erected€on€his€or€her€property€isÏnevertheless€covered,€pellucidly,€these€decisions€evince€anÏinterpretation€of€legislative€intent€that€Ô_ÔR.P.Ô_Ô€ðð€9„104(f)(3)€is€toÏbe€read€as€distinguishing€between€the€homeowner€and€the€commercialÏowner,€as€opposed€to€drawing€a€distinction€between€whether€theÏsingle€family€dwelling€is€being€ð ðerectedðð€or€ð ðremodeled.ðð€€TheÏexception€to€the€mechanicsðð€lien€statute,€in€our€view,€was€enactedÏto€protect€the€òòowner€of€a€homeóó,€regardless€of€the€òòkindóó€ofÐ ºl  Ðconstruction€conducted€on€his€or€her€residence.Ìà  àIn€the€case€òòsub€judice,óó€appellant€was€in€a€better€positionÐ Ð Ðthan€appellees€to€know€that€Timberwood€was€in€a€financiallyÏunstable€position.€€In€fact,€appellant€knew€of€Timberwoodððs€paymentÏhistory,€in€particular,€as€it€had€several€prior€contracts€withÏTimberwood.€€As€we€have€noted€previously,€ð ðthe€subcontractor€canÏprotect€itself€against€loss€very€easily€under€the€contract.ðð€ÏòòRidgeóó,€69€Md.€App.€at€375.€€Armed€with€appellantððs€knowledge€ofÐ 2!ä  ÐTimberwoodððs€financial€history,€appellant€could€have€protected€itsÏinterest€by€requesting€appellees€to€issue€progress€checks€payableÏboth€to€Timberwood€and€to€appellant.€€Moreover,€the€Court€ofÏAppeals€and€this€Court€have€consistently€underscored€that€ð ðtheÏclear€purposeðð€of€the€exception€is€to€avoid€double€payment€by€theÏhomeowner€and€to€shift€the€risk€of€loss€from€the€owner€of€a€singleÏfamily€dwelling€to€the€subcontractor.€€òòIdóó.€at€374„75.Ð ò,¤&. Ðà  àIn€sum,€it€is€more€likely€that€ð ðbeing€erected€on€the€land€ofÏthe€owner€for€his€own€residenceðð€was€language€intended€to€makeÏclear€that€Ô_ÔR.P.Ô_Ô€ðð€9„104(f)(3)€is€inapplicable€to€agreements€whenÏsomeone€other€than€the€residential€ð ðowner,ðð€i.e.,€the€commercialÏbuilder€who€contracts€with€the€prime€contractor,€holds€title€to€theÏland€prior€to€placement€of€a€lien€against€the€property.€€To€beÏsure,€the€lien,€in€legal€contemplation,€òòisóó€against€the€ð ðsingleÐ V  Ðfamily€dwelling,ðð€notwithstanding€that€the€claim€is€for€labor€orÏmaterial€involved€in€the€rebuilding€or€improvement€of€existingÏstructures.€€Clearly,€the€addition€in€this€case€was€ð ðon€the€land€ofÏthe€owner.ðð€€As€the€minority€points€out,€ð ðObviously,€theÏlegislature€understands€how€to€eliminate€any€linguisticÏdistinctions€between€new€and€existing€construction€.€.€.€.ðð€€ThatÏbeing€the€case,€divining€an€intent€to€distinguish€between€newÏconstruction€and€ð ðerectionðð€of€an€addition€to€an€existing€structureÏis€less€plausible€than€the€difference€between€home€improvements,Ïremodeling,€and€repairs€as€contradistinguished€from€newÏconstruction€and€building€on€an€addition.€Significantly,€theÏlegislature€could€have€expressly€excluded€additions€ð ðerectedðð€orÏself„contained€units€added€to€existing€improvements€ð ðerected€on€theÏland€of€the€owner€for€his€[or€her]€own€residenceðð€had€that€been€theÏintent€underlying€the€enactment€of€the€Ô_Ôlegislation.Ô_ÔÌà  àThe€stated€purpose€behind€the€1982€amendment€was€to€protectÏòòthe€familyóó€and€limit€exposure€of€personal€residences€as€opposed€toÐ Î,€&. Ðcommercial€enterprises,€to€avoid€subjecting€òòhomeownersóó€to€liabilityÐ N Ðfor€double€payment,€and€to€shift€the€risk€of€loss€from€theÏhomeowner€to€the€subcontractor,€who€is€in€a€better€position€toÏprotect€itself€by€requiring€that€the€owner€agree€to€authorize€theÏprogress€draw€payable€to€both€prime€and€subcontractor.€ÏAdditionally,€as€òòRidge€Sheet€Metal€óópoints€out,€the€subcontractor€isÐ ¶h  Ðmore€familiar€with€the€general€contractorððs€financial€circumstancesÏand€better€able€to€ascertain€when€financial€collapse€is€imminent.€ÏTo€quote€a€maxim€in€equitable€jurisprudence,€ð ðWhenever€one€of€two€Ïinnocent€persons€must€suffer€by€the€acts€of€a€third,€he€who€hasÏenabled€such€third€person€to€occasion€the€loss€must€sustain€it.ðð€Ð Ð Ðòò¢Busey£€v.€Reeseóó,€38€Md.€264€(1873).Ð Ê| Ðà  àThe€1982€amendment€and€Maryland€case€law€continue€to€pronounceÏthe€stated€policy€that€subcontractors€and€materialmen€be€protected;Ïhowever,€the€rationale€that€the€homeowner€must€bear€the€loss€whenÏa€general€contractor€becomes€insolvent€without€paying€his€or€herÏsubcontractors€because€the€homeowner€received€the€benefits€has€beenÏsupplanted€by€the€requirement€that€subcontractors,€when€providingÏlabor€or€materials€in€residential€construction,€take€simpleÏprecautions€to€protect€their€interest,€the€net€result€being€thatÏgeneral€contractors€would€not€be€able€to€ð ðkiteðð€their€projects€forÏextended€periods€and€fewer€subcontractors€and€owners€would€be€leftÏð ðholding€the€bag,ðð€because€general€contractors€who€are€impecuniousÏwould€simply€fold.€€Finally,€in€òòRidge€Sheet€Metalóó,€we€pointed€outÐ æ,˜&. Ðthat€R.P.€ðð€9„104€did€not€affect€the€right€to€maintain€a€personalÏaction€against€anyone,€including€the€owner€or€the€prime€contractor,Ïin€which€case,€the€claimant€is€put€to€its€burden€of€proving€theÏliability€for€the€debt.€€The€exception€merely€prohibits€encumbranceÏof€the€residence€with€a€mechanicsðð€lien.Ìà  àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€the€language€in€Ô_ÔR.P.Ô_Ô€ðð€9„104(f)(3)Ïshould€not€be€narrowly€construed€so€as€to€be€inconsistent€with€theÏpolicy€considerations€behind€the€homeownerððs€exception.€€We,Ïtherefore,€hold€that€appellant€cannot€establish€a€lien€againstÏappelleesðð€single€family€home€for€the€materials€furnished€and€workÏperformed€and€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€applying€Ô_ÔR.P.Ô_Ô€ððÏ9„104(f)(3),€limiting€appelleesðð€liability€and€denying€appellantððsÏpetition€for€a€mechanicsðð€lien.ÌÌÓÓò òñóñÓ  Óñóñà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àJUDGMENT€OF€THE€CIRCUIT€COURTÐ ¶h ÐFOR€BALTIMORE€COUNTY€AFFIRMED.Ð (#(# ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àCOSTS€TO€BE€PAID€BY€APPELLANT.ó óÐb (#(# ÐÌÌñøñÌÌÌÌÌDissenting€Opinion€folñøññùññøñoñøññùññúñlows:ñúñÐ   'Ò ' Ðñ÷ñÔ_Ôñ÷ñÑ  ÑØØÒÀ°ÒÔ‡XŒäXXXR Ôñ÷ñà@5ôàREPORTEDˆÐ ° ÐÌà@°°*ôàòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€SPECIAL€APPEALSˆÐ @ ÐÌà@``4ôàOF€MARYLANDˆÌóóÌà@5ôàNo.€2763ˆÌÌà@DD/ôàSEPTEMBER€TERM,€1999ˆÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ € Ð  ÐÌÌÌà@°°*ôàRIDGE€HEATING,€AIR€CONDITIONINGˆÌà@¼¼0ôàAND€PLUMBING,€INC.ˆÌÌà@||8ôàv.ˆÌÌà@TT-ôàROBERT€S.€BRENNEN€ET€UX.ˆÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ ¨ø ÐÌÌÌà  àà p àà È àDavis,Ìà  àà p àà È àThieme,Ìà  àà p àà È àKenney,ÌÌà  àà p àà È àà  àJJ.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ  X# ÐÌà@tt)ôàDissenting€opinion€by€Kenney,€J.ˆÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ (#x' ÐÌÌÌà  àà p àFiled:ñöñ€November€13,€2000ñöñÌÌñ÷ñÒ°ÀÒÓÓñ÷ñÐ  °· ÐÑ e Ññ÷ñÔ#†XR XXXŒä$#ÔÔ‡XŒäXXXR Ôñýññüñ¢ñüññýññþññüñ¢¢ñüññþññüñDisseñüññþññüñ£ñüññþññþñnting€opinion€by€Kenney,€œJ.:ñþññýññüñ£€ñüññüñtñüññýññûñ›Ð ° ÐÌñûñà  àThis€case€involves€the€collision€of€competing€policies€withinÏthe€mechanicsðð€lien€law€that€was€adopted€to€protect€those€whoÏfurnish€labor€and€materials€in€construction.€€òòRiley€v.€Abramsóó,€287Ð ð @ ÐMd.€348,€357,€412€A.2d€996€(1980).€€€In€1982,€the€legislatureÏadopted€Md.€Code€(1974,€1981€Repl.€Vol.,€1982€Supp.),€ðð€9„104(f)(3)Ïof€the€Real€Property€Article€(ð ð¢R.P.£ðð),€which€provided:Ð ð@  ÐÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓà ¸ àNotwithstanding€any€other€provision€ofÏthis€section€to€the€contrary,€the€lien€of€theÏsubcontractor€against€òòa€single€family€dwellingÐ ` Ðbeing€erected€on€the€land€of€the€owner€for€hisÏown€residenceóó€shall€not€exceed€the€amount€byÐ  ð Ðwhich€the€owner€is€indebted€under€the€contractÏat€the€time€the€notice€is€given.€[EmphasisÏadded.]ÌÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒÓÓà  àIn€òò¢Reisterstown£€Lumber€Co.€v.€Tsaoóó,€319€Md.€623,€628,€574€A.2dÐ ˆØ Ð307€(1990),€the€Court€of€Appeals€recognized€that€the€clear€purposeÏof€ðð€9„104(f)(3)€is€ð ðto€protect€from€double€payment€the€owner€of€ððaÐ øH Ðsingle€family€dwelling€being€erected€on€the€ownerððs€land€for€hisÏown€residence.ðððð€€Real€Property€ðð€9„104(f)(3)€has€been€liberallyÐ h! Ðand,€in€my€mind,€appropriately€construed€by€our€courts€to€carry€outÏthe€perceived€legislative€intent.€€This€Court€acknowledged,Ïhowever,€in€òòRidge€Sheet€Metal€Co.€v.€Morrellóó,€69€Md.€App.€364,€369,Ð È#' Ð517€A.2d€1133(1986)€that,€although€a€significant€change€in€the€lawÏoccurred€in€1982,€the€mechanicsðð€lien€statute€is€ð ðstill€to€beÐ 8'ˆ"+ Ðconstrued€in€favor€of€mechanics€and€suppliers.ðð€Ð È($- Ðà  àIn€òò¢Reisterstown£óó,€the€Court€was€confronted€with€owners€whoÐ X*¨%/ Ðdecided,€after€construction,€not€to€occupy€the€dwelling€because€ofÏits€proximity€and€view€of€a€cemetery.€€They€decided€ultimately€toÐ È-)3r Ðoccupy€the€dwelling.€€The€question€before€the€Court€was€whether€theÏdwelling€being€erected€was€still€being€erected€as€their€residenceÏafter€they€decided€not€to€live€in€the€house.€€Acknowledging€thatÏthe€problem€presented€was€of€limited€scope,€the€Court€inÏòò¢Reisterstown£€óófocused€on€the€language€ð ðfor€his€own€residenceðð€foundÐ n  Ðin€ðð€9„104€and€held€that€whether€the€building€is€intended€to€be€theÏownerððs€residence€is€determined€as€of€the€time€when€theÏsubcontractor€commences€an€otherwise€substantially€uninterruptedÏperformance€of€work€for,€or€sells€materials€to,€the€contractor.Ïòò¢Reisterstown£,óó€319€Md.òò€óóat€630„31.€€òò¢Reisterstown£óó€involved€newÐ Ž@  Ðconstruction.Ìà  àThe€majority€finds€òòGrubb€Contractors€v.€Abbottóó,€84€Md.€App.Ð þ° Ð384,€579€A.2d€1185€(1990),€to€be€ð ðinstructive,ðð€majority€opinion€atÐ Þ Ð12,€because€it,€too,€involved€an€addition€to€an€existing€home,€butÏthat€was€not€the€issue€decided€in€òòGrubbóó.€€The€òòGrubbóó€decisionÐ þ° Ðfocused€on€what€constitutes€a€ð ðsingle€family€dwelling.ðð€€TheÐ Þ Ðquestion€presented€was€whether€the€inclusion€of€Mrs.€Abbotððs€motherÏas€a€permanent€resident€of€the€dwelling€with€her€own€kitchenÏresulted€in€two€families€occupying€the€dwelling,€rendering€it€noÏlonger€a€single€family€dwelling.€We€concluded€that€the€AbbottÏhousehold€remained€ð ða€single€family,€with€a€single€dwelling.ðð€òòGrubbóó,Ð ®#`$ Ð84€Md.€App.€at€393.€Ìòòà  àGrubbóó€looked€toòò€Ridge€Sheet€Metal,€óóa€case€involving€the€issueÐ 'Ð ( Ðof€indebtedness,€for€guidance€as€to€legislative€intent.€€€MoreÏrecently,€in€òòBest€Drywallóó€òòv.€Berryóó,€108€Md.€App.€381,€395,€672€A.2dÐ Ž*@$, Ðâ â116€(1996),€we€construed€the€term€ð ðresidenceðð€also€to€include€aÐ n, &. Ðvacation€home.€€Both€òòRidge€Sheet€Metalóó€and€òòBest€Drywallóó€involvedÐ N Ðâ ânew€construction.Ìà  àIt€appears€that€no€case€has€decided€directly€the€issue€nowÏbefore€us:€€Is€there€a€distinction€to€be€made€between€newÏconstruction€and€remodeling€or€improving€an€existing€dwelling€inÏthe€application€of€ðð€9„104€(f)(3)?€€As€always,€our€goal€is€toÏdetermine€the€general€purpose,€aim,€or€policy€of€the€statute,€and,Ïalthough€we€are€not€to€be€enslaved€by€the€plain€meaning€rule,€ourÏstarting€point€is€always€the€language€of€the€statute.€€òòTracey€v.Ð Ð  ÐTraceyóó,€328€Md.€380,€614€A.2d€590€(1992).€€In€our€analysis,€it€isÐ þ° Ðimportant€to€examine€the€statute€as€a€whole€to€divine€theÏlegislative€intent.€òò€¢Hyle£€v.€Motor€Vehicle€Admin.óó,€348€Md.€143,Ð n  Ð149,€702€A.2d€760,€763€(1997)€("In€interpreting€statute,€Court€ofÏAppeals€construes€statute€as€a€whole,€interpreting€each€provisionÏof€statute€in€context€of€the€entire€statutory€scheme.")€€€Ìà  àIn€reviewing€the€statute,€I€find€the€following€provisions,€asÏemphasized,€instructive:ÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓ[Maryland€Code€Ann.€(1974,€1996€Repl.€Vol.)]€Ïðð€9-102€€Property€subject€to€lien.ÌÌà ¸ à(a)€òòBuildings.€ð"ð€óó€òòEvery€building€erectedÐ v$(% Ðand€every€building€repaired,€rebuilt,€orÏimprovedóó€to€the€extent€of€25€percent€of€itsÐ .&à' Ðvalue€is€subject€to€establishment€of€a€lien€inÏaccordance€with€this€subtitle€for€the€paymentÏof€all€debts,€without€regard€to€the€amount,Ïcontracted€for€work€done€for€or€about€theÏbuilding€and€for€materials€furnished€for€orÏabout€the€building,€including€the€drilling€andÏinstallation€of€wells€to€supply€water,€theÏconstruction€or€installation€of€any€swimmingÏpool€or€fencing,€the€sodding,€seeding€orÏplanting€in€or€about€the€premises€of€anyÐ þ-°'1 Ðshrubs,€trees,€plants,€flowers€or€nurseryÏproducts,€the€grading,€filling,€landscaping,Ïand€paving€of€the€premises,€and€the€leasing€ofÏequipment,€with€or€without€an€operator,€forÏuse€for€or€about€the€building€or€premises.Ìà@XX%ìà*€€€€*€€€€*ˆÌà ¸ à(c)€òòMachines,€wharves,€and€bridges.€ð"ð€óóÐ þ ° ÐAny€machine,€wharf,€or€bridge€òòerected,Ð î   Ðconstructed,€or€repairedóó€within€the€State€mayÐ ¶ h Ðbe€subjected€to€a€lien€in€the€same€manner€as€aÏbuilding€is€subjected€to€a€lien€in€accordanceÏwith€this€subtitle.Ìà ¸ à(d)€òòExemptions.€ð"ðóó€However,€a€òòbuilding€orÐ Öˆ  Ðthe€land€on€which€the€building€is€erectedóó€mayÐ Æx  Ðnot€be€subjected€to€a€lien€under€this€subtitleÏif,€prior€to€the€establishment€of€a€lien€inÏaccordance€with€this€subtitle,€legal€title€hasÏbeen€granted€to€a€bona€fide€purchaser€forÏvalue.ÌÌðð€9-104.€Notice€requirement€for€lien;€formÌÌà ¸ à(a)€òòNotice€required€to€entitleР΀ Ðsubcontractor€to€lien.€ð"ð€óó(1)€A€subcontractorÐ ¾p Ðdoing€work€or€furnishing€materials€or€both€forÏor€about€a€building€other€than€òòa€single€familyÐ v( Ðdwelling€being€erected€on€the€owner's€land€forÏhis€own€residenceóó€is€not€entitled€to€a€lienÐ ¸ Ðunder€this€subtitle€unless,€within€120€daysÏafter€doing€the€work€or€furnishing€theÏmaterials,€the€subcontractor€gives€writtenÏnotice€of€an€intention€to€claim€a€lienÏsubstantially€in€the€form€specified€inÏsubsection€(b)€of€this€section.Ìà ¸ à(2)€A€subcontractor€doing€work€orÏfurnishing€materials€or€both€òòfor€or€about€aÐ F"ø# Ðsingle€family€dwelling€being€erected€on€theÏownerððs€land€for€his€own€residenceóó€is€notÐ Ö#ˆ% Ðentitled€to€a€lien€under€this€subtitle€unless,Ïwithin€120€days€after€doing€work€or€furnishingÏmaterials€for€or€about€that€single€familyÏdwelling,€the€subcontractor€gives€writtenÏnotice€of€an€intention€to€claim€a€lien€inÏaccordance€with€subsection€(a)(1)€of€thisÏsection€and€the€owner€has€not€made€fullÏpayment€to€the€contractor€prior€to€receivingÏthe€notice.ÌÓ  Ó***ÌÓ'5Óà ¸ à(f)(3)€Notwithstanding€any€otherÏprovision€of€this€section€to€the€contrary,€theÏlien€of€the€subcontractor€against€òòa€singleÐ þ-°'2 Ðfamily€dwelling€being€erected€on€the€land€ofÏthe€owner€for€his€own€residenceóó€shall€notÐ È Ðexceed€the€amount€by€which€the€owner€isÏindebted€under€the€contract€at€the€time€theÏnotice€is€given.€ÌÌðð€9-113.€Prohibited€provisions€in€executoryÏcontracts.ÌÌà ¸ à(a)€òòIn€generalóó.€ð"ð€An€executory€contractÐ V   Ðbetween€a€contractor€and€any€subcontractorÏthat€is€òòrelated€to€construction,€alteration,Ð À  Ðor€repair€of€a€building,€structure,€orÏimprovementóó€may€not€waive€or€require€theÐ žP  Ðsubcontractor€to€waive€the€right€to:Ì€€€(1)€Claim€a€mechanicsðð€lien;€€orÌ€€€(2)€Sue€on€a€contractorððs€bond.Ìà ¸ à(b)€òòProvisions€conditioning€payment€toÐ ¾p  Ðsubcontractor€on€payment€of€contractoróó.€ð"ð€AÐ ®` Ðprovision€in€an€executory€contract€between€aÏcontractor€and€a€subcontractor€that€is€òòrelatedÐ f Ðto€construction,€alteration,€or€repair€of€aÏbuilding,€structure,€or€improvementóó€and€thatÐ ö¨ Ðconditions€payment€to€the€subcontractor€onÏreceipt€by€the€contractor€of€payment€from€theÏowner€or€any€other€third€party€may€notÏabrogate€or€waive€the€right€of€theÏsubcontractor€to:Ì€€€(1)€Claim€a€mechanicsðð€lien;€€orÌ€€€(2)€Sue€on€a€contractorððs€bond.Ìà ¸ à(c)€òòVoid€provisionsóó.€ð"ð€Any€provision€ofÐ 6è Ða€contract€made€in€violation€of€this€sectionÏis€void€as€against€the€public€policy€of€thisÏState.€ÌÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒÓÓà  àIn€describing€property€that€can€be€subjected€to€a€lien,€ðð€9„¼102(a)€refers€to€ð ðevery€building€erectedðð€and€to€ð ðevery€buildingÐ Ö#ˆ% Ðrepaired,€rebuilt€or€improved....ðð€€The€value€of€the€labor€orÐ f%' Ðmaterials€is€not€an€issue€in€the€case€of€a€ð ðbuilding€erected.ðð€€ItÐ ö&¨ ) Ðis€material€to€whether€a€lien€will€attach€in€the€case€of€a€repair,Ïrebuilding€or€an€improvement.€€€Section€9„102(c),€on€the€otherÏhand,€makes€no€distinction€in€the€case€of€machines,€wharves€andÏbridges.€€Moreover,€the€exemption€created€by€ðð€9„102(d)€to€protectÐ 6-è&1 Ðbona€fide€purchasers€for€value€also€makes€no€distinction€betweenÏnew€construction€and€existing€buildings€so€long€as€the€building€isÏsubject€to€a€lien€pursuant€to€ðð€9„102(a).Ìà  àThe€language€of€ðð€9„104,€the€section€in€which€the€limitationÏunder€review€is€found,€repeatedly€carves€out€an€exception€betweenÏbuildings€generally€and€ð ða€single€family€dwelling€òòbeing€erectedóó€onÐ Ð  Ðthe€ownerððs€land€for€his€own€residence.ðð€€(Emphasis€added.)€€ThisÐ ®`  Ðlanguage€closely€tracks€the€language€of€ðð€9„102(a)€and€implies,€toÏme,€that€it€applies€to€new€construction.€€If€the€intent€was€not€toÏlimit€ðð€9„104(f)3)€to€new€construction,€there€was€no€purpose€to€theÏwords€ð ðbeing€erected.ðð€€Those€words€could€be€excised€from€theÐ î  Ðprovision€to€protect€generally€the€owners€of€single€familyÏresidences€similarly€to€the€broad€protection€given€to€bona€fideÏpurchasers€for€value€by€the€exemption€in€ðð€9„102(d).€€We€are€not€toÏinterpret€a€statute€in€a€manner€that€would€render€a€clause,Ïsentence,€or€phrase€ð ðsurplusage,€superfluous,€meaningless,€orÐ ¾p Ðnugatory."€€òòState€v.€¢Pagano£óó,€341€Md.€129,€134,€669€A.2d€1339€(1996)Ð N  Ð(quoting€òòMontgomery€County€v.€¢Buckman£óó,€333€Md.€516,€524,€636€A.2dÐ .!à" Ð448€(1994)).Ìà  àWere€we€writing€on€a€clean€slate,€I€might€agree€that€the€Ïpolicy€interpretation€reached€by€the€majority€is€an€appropriateÏpolicy.€€I€find€it€difficult,€however,€to€ignore€the€repeatedÏlanguage€in€this€statute€that€reinforces€a€policy€distinctionÏbetween€new€construction€and€home€improvements.€€Because€we€areÏbeing€asked€to€interpret€a€limitation€to€a€statute€designed€toÏprotect€lien€claimants,€which€is€to€be€interpreted€in€the€mostÐ þ-°'2 Ðliberal€and€comprehensive€manner€in€favor€of€mechanics,€€we€shouldÏcarefully€heed€our€own€admonition€in€òòRidgeóó:Ð Þ ÐÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓà ¸ àSince€the€law€was€designed€to€protectÏsubcontractors€and€materialmen,€the€Court€ofÏAppeals€repeatedly€ruled€that€it€was€to€beÏinterpreted€in€the€most€liberal€andÏcomprehensive€manner€in€favor€of€mechanics.€ÏCourts,€however,€had€ð ðno€power€to€extend€theÐ ¦ X  Ðlaw€to€cases,€beyond€the€obvious€designs€andÏplain€requirements€of€the€statute.ðð€€€AlthoughÐ 6è  Ða€significant€change€occurred€in€the€law€inÏ1982,€as€Chief€Judge€Gilbert€recentlyÏrepeated,€it€is€still€to€be€interpreted€inÏfavor€of€mechanics€and€suppliers.ÌÌÒ°` FÒÒ°` ûEÒÓFÓòòRidgeóó,€69€Md.€App.€at€369„370€(internal€citations€omitted).Ð æ˜  Ðà  àIn€preceding€cases,€the€statute€could€be€construed€withoutÏreference€to€language€that€distinguishes€between€buildings€erectedÏor€ð ðbeing€erectedðð€and€an€existing€building€being€repaired,€rebuilt,Ð æ˜ Ðor€improved.€The€language€of€ðð€9„104,€both€in€the€noticeÏprovisions,€(a)(1)€and€(2)€and€in€the€limitation€language€ofÏ(f)(3),€consistently€refers€to€ð ða€single€family€dwelling€beingÐ –H Ðerected€on€the€ownerððs€land€for€his€own€residence.ðð€€Ð &Ø Ðà  àObviously,€the€legislature€understands€how€to€eliminate€anyÏlinguistic€distinctions€between€new€and€existing€construction,€asÏdemonstrated€in€ðð€9„102(c)€(ð ðany€marine,€wharf,€or€bridge€erected,Ð Ö#ˆ% Ðconstructed€or€repairedðð)€and€ðð€9„113.€€Section€9„113€concernsÐ f%' Ðcontracts€between€contractors€and€subcontractors€and€refers€toÏexecutory€contracts€ð ðrelated€to€construction,€alteration,€or€repairÐ †(8"+ Ðof€a€building,€structure,€or€improvement.ðð€€¢R.P.£€ðð9„113(a)&(b).€Ð *È#- ÐThat€language€clearly€encompasses€both€new€construction€and€homeÏimprovements.€€It€is€noted,€also,€that€the€prohibition€created€byÐ 6-è&1 Ððð€9„113€against€contracts€waiving€or€requiring€subcontractors€toÏwaive€their€right€to€a€mechanicsðð€lien€or€even€to€make€theÏobligation€of€the€contractor€to€the€subcontractor€conditioned€uponÏpayment€by€the€owner€to€the€contractor,€reinforces€a€policy€toÏprotect€subcontractors€such€as€appellant€in€this€case.€Ìà  àAre€there€possible€reasons€for€such€a€distinction?€€OneÏexplanation€is€actually€suggested€by€the€Court€in€òòRidgeóó.€€InÐ ®`  Ðexplaining€why€a€person€in€the€trades€may€be€in€a€better€positionÏthan€an€owner€to€know€whether€the€general€contractor€is€in€aÏfinancially€unstable€position,€the€Court€reflected€thatÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓ[¢i]ncreasing£€the€risk€of€double€payment€forÏthe€single€family€dwelling€owner€may€wellÏdampen€the€enthusiasm€of€the€òòprospective€houseР΀ Ðbuilderóó.€€This€in€turn€would€further€decreaseÐ –H Ðòòhousing€startsóó,€particularly€in€a€slow€market.€Ð ^ ÐÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒÓÓòòRidgeóó,€69€Md.€App.€at€375€(emphasis€supplied).€€The€Court€went€onÐ î  Ðto€note€that€ð ð[f]or€those€unfamiliar€with€the€housing€industry,€theР΀ Ðnumber€of€òòhousing€startsóó€is€used€as€a€predictor€for€marketÐ ^ Ðconditions€for€the€coming€year.ðð€òò€Ridge,€óó69€Md.€App.€at€375,€fn.€5Ð î   Ð(emphasis€added).€€Rather€than€creating€a€protection€for€owners€ofÏexisting€homes,€the€legislation€may€have€been€designed€to€jumpÏstart€or€encourage€new€home€construction€in€support€of€the€housingÏindustry.€€Perhaps,€as€a€practical€matter,€the€legislature€believedÏthat€owners€of€existing€homes,€who€are€more€likely€to€be€on€siteÏduring€construction€and€who€may€have€greater€personal€knowledge€ofÏthe€contractor€being€utilized,€do€not€require€the€same€protectionÏas€the€new€home€buyer.€€In€the€end,€of€course,€it€may€be€simply€aÐ ¾,p&0 Ðmatter€of€legislative€oversight€or€imprecise€drafting.€€Obviously,Ïwe€cannot€know€for€sure,€but€I€do€not€believe€it€to€be€necessaryÏthat€we€do.Ìà  àI€would€interpret€the€limitation€narrowly€and,€based€on€theÏlanguage€of€the€statute,€find€for€the€appellant.€€Therefore,€IÏrespectfully€dissent.Ô#†XÒXXXŒõr#Ôñññ